[mst]

[quote name='henry42' timestamp='1300656071' post='6985']

duh.. the claim in the link is made by Daniel

[/quote]



... who is just another fanboy and at least realizes himself that he is "100% biased".



Have you shot with both and have some own experiences to share?



-- Markus

[allanmb]

[quote name='henry42' timestamp='1300656071' post='6985']

duh.. the claim in the link is made by Daniel



the forums are full of dissatisfied canon owners



bc you claim to visit the fred miranda forums, check it for yourself, i bet you already have but you are in denial, in the nikon forums are many posts of both pros and amateurs making the switch cause of canon's focus issues, but yet in the canon forum in the thread "why do you shoot canon" not one person switched to canon cause of better AF on canon, they only shoot canon cause of the use to be cheaper prices, buy cheap and get cheap

[/quote]



Forums are often full of people who have a reason to complain. Often a few percent of users of any product are unhappy and complain on forums. Of the rest of the happy owners, who posts saying "wow my product is great"? When buying products, read reviews, not just forums. And if you are spending a lot of money and can't decide between a few products then try them out, borrow or rent!



henry42, I suggest you stop offering advice until you have at least tried a 5DII out and can vouch that it's AF is good or poor. I have used one and found its AF to be perfectly fine, although it wasn't a match for my 1DII but I didn't expect it to be.



I havent used a D700 but it can't be as much better (than the 5D) as you are suggesting unless it was able to read your mind and focus in infinitesimal time!

[Steinar1]

I suggest we all stop paying attention to the "Henry's" of this world and stick to some common sense and sanity. If not, this Forum is very quickly going to be completely diluted and loose its sense all together. Don'tn reply, don't comment and they will go away!

[IanCD]

[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1300729224' post='6997']

I suggest we all stop paying attention to the "Henry's" of this world and stick to some common sense and sanity. If not, this Forum is very quickly going to be completely diluted and loose its sense all together. Don'tn reply, don't comment and they will go away!

[/quote]

Well said, Vieux Loup. Thanks

Ian

[tgruehl]

All,



I much appreciate your efforts to provide me with input and share your own experiences. I finally came to a conclusion (it's been a long time in the making).



Technically, there are pros and cons to both, some suspect, as you all mentioned. These are not significant, but just appear to be differences which make a decision so difficult.



In the end, I decided to purchase the camera that feels the best in my hand from an ergonomic perspective, and that was the Canon.



As someone said - neither camera will be a mistake, just go with what feels right and enjoy in good health. And that's exactly what I'm planning to do.



Again, thanks everyone for your input!

[backcountryskier]

Get a Sony: in-body IS plus the speed of a prime.



Just kidding... enjoy your new camera.

[Guest]

[quote name='vollframe' timestamp='1300574099' post='6953']

Looking to upgrade to full frame.



Requirements:

- fast auto-focus

- low light, no flash

- controlled bokeh strongly desired

- indoor event / outdoor street (not much time to compose, no tripod)

- preferred focal ranges 50mm (35mm, 85mm)

- occasionally ultra-wide cityscapes, though not critical



Considerations

- Nikon D700, Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G, Nikkor 17-40mm N VR

- Canon 5D Mark II, 50mm f/1.2 L, 16-35 f/2.8 L



Pro Nikon

Nikon appears better in low light

Nikon finally updating their lens collection

Nikon settings more easily adjusted (maybe just what I'm used to)



Pro Canon

Canon appears to have greater lens selection

Canon handling/feel in hand preferred over Nikon (smaller body, better grip)



Can't tell any difference in auto-focus speed.



Help is appreciated!

[/quote]

Both are very good choices. I'd say go for the Nikon if you need the additional focus points and need acceptable Af in the lowest of low light. The 5Ds Af can struggle a bit in extremly low light (candle light). In all other circumstances, including normal indoor conditions and low lit churches, the 5D's AF is very competent. So unless sports and near darkness are on your shooting list, the AF of the 5D is sufficient (Iam shooting a 5d Mark II right now).



I'd reevaluate the low light image quality point. While it is true that the Nikon has a little less noise than the canon when you view both pics 100% side by side, this differnce is invisible in any normal image viewing conditions. Remeber, you view the canon image at a much higher magnification than the Nikon, if you look at both of them at 100%. In prints of equal size, there is almost no difference.

[Steinar1]

[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1300901598' post='7051']

Both are very good choices. I'd say go for the Nikon if you need the additional focus points and need acceptable Af in the lowest of low light. The 5Ds Af can struggle a bit in extremly low light (candle light). In all other circumstances, including normal indoor conditions and low lit churches, the 5D's AF is very competent. So unless sports and near darkness are on your shooting list, the AF of the 5D is sufficient (Iam shooting a 5d Mark II right now).



I'd reevaluate the low light image quality point. While it is true that the Nikon has a little less noise than the canon when you view both pics 100% side by side, this differnce is invisible in any normal image viewing conditions. Remeber, you view the canon image at a much higher magnification than the Nikon, if you look at both of them at 100%. In prints of equal size, there is almost no difference.

[/quote]





Why? Both of them are FF cameras. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' /> There is no difference in magnification! Have I missed something?

[mst]

[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1300965276' post='7065']

Why? Both of them are FF cameras. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' /> There is no difference in magnification! Have I missed something?

[/quote]



jenbenn talks about looking at images at 100% (pixel level).



5D II: 21 MP

D700: 12 MP



So, magnification is considerably higher with the 5D (at pixel level!).



-- Markus

[Yakim]

[quote name='vollframe' timestamp='1300755768' post='7002']

In the end, I decided to purchase the camera that feels the best in my hand from an ergonomic perspective, and that was the Canon. [/quote]



That is a very good way to choose. May I ask how do you find the AF of the 5D2? One of the reasons I could not get along with my 5D1 (same AF system as 5D2) is the bad AF performance once you are not in the central AF point.